Friday, July 13, 2007

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran

"Buyers" of what they regard as theirs? The global mafia, of course, wanted none of that. They had for years regarded the Iranian King as a threat.* And so began a world-wide campaign of the vilification of the Shah, a campaign led by self-described “leftists” and “liberals”. Vilification is actually an understatement, for the Shah was turned into the Devil himself. That is why, while Chomsky’s friends were massacring hundreds of thousands in Cambodia, the Shah of Iran was singled out by Amnesty International as the “world’s number one violator of human rights.” I mention Cambodia only, because in Apartheid South Africa, Red China, Uganda, Zaire, Middle East and Latin America,… the governments there were singing of brotherly love, while others were preoccupied with dropping flowers on Vietnam.)

In this context, it is also not so difficult to see why Iran’s celebration of Her own 2500 years of history, which followed this conference some nine months later, was viciously characterized and ridiculed by individuals of the same camp, and anti-Iranians in general, as the self-aggrandizement of a “low-born Cossack”, or the “comical showing off” of a “self-serving” son of an “illiterate mule driver”.

Incidentally, this last, in reference to Reza Shah the Great, Father of Mohammad Reza Shah, is still fashionable among some “Iranian intellectuals”, Islamist and (not surprisingly) western-educated alike. In fact I recently heard it used by a sympathizer of the Fadayeen Khalq Organization. Interestingly enough, Fadayeen Khalq, a terrorist organization self-styled as "Marxist", was founded in 1971.

*It is not a secret that, years before this conference, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was actively planning to topple the Shah. I mention parenthetically that the across-the-board absence of any reference at all to Kennedy’s intentions (and by implication those of his ilk in the Democratic, and Republican, Party) is, on one hand, to prevent any cracks in the not so meticulously constructed image of a man who cared for nothing more than his nation’s prosperity as a “US puppet”, an image which continues to be propagated to this day, and on the other, and in a broader context, to continue to provide foreign agents then acting the part of “opposition”, with some justification for the 1979 Reaction which, Allah Be Praised, brought Iranians their “independence”!! It is, nevertheless, mentioned by the Honorable William Orville Douglas, the US Supreme Court Associate Justice, in his autobiography.

6 Comments:

In fact, in 1970s Iran was one of the least authoritarian country in the world, not only compared to its direct neighbours such as Turkey, Iraq and other Arab countries, Pakistan and … Soviet Union, but also compared to Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile have also to be remembered.

There are indeed many additional comparisons that could be made, yet, for a reasonably objective person any single one should suffice to expose the accusation as wholly baseless.

Of course, we need not rely on comparisons at all. Beyond such comparisons, there is the fact that the charge revolved mainly around Iran’s (or “the Shah’s”, as they still put it) treatment of not saboteurs and terrorists, but of “political prisoners”.

To recognize the ulterior motives of those making the accusation one need only remember Germany, France or Italy’s war, during the same period, against such groups as Baader-Meinhof, Brigate Rosso, and Action Directe, and the convenient manner in which these governments excluded themselves from the list of “violators” merely by designating the European urban guerillas as “ruthless terrorists” or “paid foreign agents”. After all, a nation’s treatment of “political prisoners” may be criticized, but to question a nation’s duty to defend her citizens against terrorism and violence would have appeared absurd.

I am a relative newcomer to what I am sure is a large group of your admiring readers. For the last few weeks, and ever since I found your Blog, I have read your passionate, sometimes brief but always pointed and scathing commentaries concerning the enemies of Iran (Iranian and non-Iranian) and especially your astute observations on the cancerous network of Iranian Liberal-Left “intelligentsia”, and have felt good that I found a rare observer “who gets it”! It is easy and understandable in the demoralizing absence of intelligent voices of what I can only describe as “authentic anti-revolutionaries” to feel like you are in a wilderness. Finding your Blog has been akin to finding an oasis in the wilderness…Your latest entry surrounding Mohammad Reza Shah’s statement at an OPEC conference, and your invocation of “Chomsky” (the Grand Ayatollah of the radical Left) prompted me to offer a few thoughts, if I am not imposing.

The "Left" is a movement and an ideology that irrespective of the country in which it is practiced, and despite its many "home grown" flavors, is utterly and thoroughly anti-West, and anti-democratic. The Left is particularly fueled by a hatred of the Unites States (and its allies and friends around the world) that is unparalleled in any other ideologies. The Left's hatred is universal and more "value-focused" (against Western values, and allies of the US), and is often adorned with passionate words in defense of the oppressed and in supposed solidarity with all who fight the perpetrators of violence and strive for "world peace".Your Blog entry includes some examples of atrocities committed around the world that do not seem to have generated hardly a whisper from those who protested against the Shah’s show of force against Iranian terrorists. One can add to your list by pointing out the Left’s support of Mandela’s Communist-dominated ANC in the 80s and 90s while savaging the “Contra” forces fighting against the totalitarianism of the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Or the Left’s worldwide campaign in support of El Salvador’s FMLN guerillas, while waging a vicious propaganda war against “Jonas Savimbi’s” freedom fighters in Angola. These are all instances of the oldest and most familiar lies of the Left, which is its selective amnesia about the crimes of the left and those who have committed crimes in the name of fighting for a better "social order".But perhaps the greatest crime of the "Liberal-Left" intellectuals in the past century was their vindictive campaign of lies, fabrications, and treachery against Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi; a campaign that will go down in history as the most vivid manifestation of a "double standard" aimed at demonizing an anti-Communist leader, while prolonging a deafening silence about the atrocities of leftist dictatorships.Today, with the exception of those relegated to the marginalized swamps of the "liberal-left" dogma, any reputable observer would concede that virtually every aspect of Iranian life and society (education, health, arts, sports, infrastructure, banking, justice system, the military, women's rights, social and religious freedoms…) was breathtakingly modernized and "civilized" under the Shah. When it came to the participation of Iranian people in the political process, while the Shah's system of government was "authoritarian", Iran was far from being a brutal "totalitarian" state, examples of which were plenty under Communist and strict Islamic regimes. In the words of historian "George Lenczowski" -the author of “Iran Under the Pahlavis”- Iran under the Shah was not only "freer" than all of its neighboring Islamic and most other Middle Eastern countries, but also all the Communist "Utopias" to which the intellectual “Mafia” was comparing its government. Did these "facts" ever interfere with the Leftist intellectuals’ "war" against the Shah? Did any of them ever offer a similar critique of “Castro’s Socialist Paradise”? To them, and to the Left in general, the Shah's regime was a tool of American influence in the region.

A few years ago, the late Iranian journalist and researcher, “Siavash Bashiri”, published an essay, which in my view has become one of the classics of contemporary Iranian political polemic on the subject of “double standards”. The essay, which was titled “Pigal Diplomacy & New-City Democracy”, showcased Bashiri’s unparalleled talent at using provocative and colorful language to masterfully make his point and convey his sense of outrage to his many readers. “Pigal”, as you may know, is the “red-light” district of the city of Paris; an area perhaps to be compared with Tehran’s so-called “New-City” district. Bashiri coined the inflammatory phrase “Pigal Diplomacy” at that time to express his indignation at the clear and present double standard of the Western democracies in dealing with the Islamic Republic. These Western countries, while preaching the gospel of “human rights”, democracy and respect for international norms, were busily establishing business and political contacts with the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, they were condemning “terrorism” on one hand and issuing statements of support in praise of “Massoud Rajavi” as a freedom fighter, and many other undeniable actions motivated by greed and double standards. In Bashiri’s words:

“…This is the law of Pigal’s diplomacy. This is the doctrine of Pigal’s diplomacy, and its mission. In this “New-City” Democracy, intimidation takes the place of freedom of expression and phony defense of human rights becomes tool of advancing the ideology…”

Sorry for the very long message. I wish you would indicate how one can send you e-mails without having to annoy your many readers with long “comment” postings, as I am sure I have just done!

I’m much affected by your kind words, and thank you for what I assure you is a praise I do not deserve. We may praise each other after our nation regains Her independence, but until then, we have very little to praise each other for. Now, regarding “the Left.”

Although a newcomer to this Blog, you must have noted that, in every instance of the term, it has never been used without quotation marks. The reason that has been the case, and the reason I cannot either agree or disagree with your characterization of “the Left”, or those you associate with “the Left”, is that I do not have the slightest clue as to the meaning of the term! What is presented in this post is some evidence. You may draw one conclusion (that I’m condemning “the Left”), others may draw something similar (that I’m denouncing elements within “the Left” as the very best agents of what they themselves have characterized as “imperialism”).

Books! I have read “Iran Under the Pahlavis”, and have referred to it here at least once. I’m also an admirer of the late, great Siavash Bashiri, an admiration based thus far solely on what little of his writings I’ve been able to gather.

Regarding my e-mail, I’ve kept it private for security reasons. You will not annoy anyone with your comments, rest assured, but for communications which simply must remain private, readers may contact Ms. Saffari.